New 686 vs. New Python ?
- Thread starter Hylander
- Start date
.38SuperMan
Member
Don't own a 686 but have looked at several. I do own quite a few K and N frame Smiths and May one day buy an older 686. But I do own quite a few Colts including 3 new pythons, 3", 4.25" & 6". I also had a late 70's Python 6".
Looking at a new Python vs new 686, fit and finish are first rate on the Colt. I've got to say Smith has really disappointed with their lack of attention to detail on their new revolvers.
Ok, I've passed up buying several new Smiths because of the lock, I hate it but do own one 617 with a lock. Colt has no lock.
A lot of folks hate that Smith uses MIM parts. In the python there are no MIM parts. Everything is forged and machined.
Someone else mentioned the lockup. Colt has the best lockup of any revolver Ive ever handled. Even the new Cobra 2" and King Cobras have the same lockup and triggers.
That extra detail to fit and finish costs and forged and machined parts are considerably more expensive than drop in MIN parts. I think the Colt is worth the difference.
Just my 2 cents.
Looking at a new Python vs new 686, fit and finish are first rate on the Colt. I've got to say Smith has really disappointed with their lack of attention to detail on their new revolvers.
Ok, I've passed up buying several new Smiths because of the lock, I hate it but do own one 617 with a lock. Colt has no lock.
A lot of folks hate that Smith uses MIM parts. In the python there are no MIM parts. Everything is forged and machined.
Someone else mentioned the lockup. Colt has the best lockup of any revolver Ive ever handled. Even the new Cobra 2" and King Cobras have the same lockup and triggers.
That extra detail to fit and finish costs and forged and machined parts are considerably more expensive than drop in MIN parts. I think the Colt is worth the difference.
Just my 2 cents.
Last edited:
SWFan27
Member
I have a new 7 shot 686 Plus and a S&W model 66-8 and I would pick them over the Colt all day long. I am not a Colt fan and they have a lot of timing issues. Below is from the Buffalo Bore Ammunition website. They seem to favor Smith & Wesson over the Python.
Special Information Note:
The below velocities were obtained from my personal, real world, factory stock, over the counter, (NOT TEST BARRELS) 357 magnum, revolvers. Also, note that the 6 inch Python, is considerably slower than the 4 inch S&W. This has nothing to do with barrel length. It is most likely a combination of differences in chamber/throat dimensions, barrel -cylinder gap, barrel internals, and forcing cone dimensions in the Python, versus the S&W. If the Python and the S&W had the same dimensions in their chamber/throats, barrel cylinder gap and forcing cone, the longer barreled Python would give much faster speeds. We have found that all of our Python test revolvers are much slower than our late model S&W revolvers of equal or even shorter barrel length.
We could have reduced the recoil, flash and blast even more by "watering down" these loads further than we did, but then you wouldn't have a real 357 magnum in your hands. So we looked for and found a balance between very powerful, fight stopping ammo that recoils and flashes much less than ours and some other makers, full power 357 loads. If we were to "water down" this "Tactical Short Barrel" 357 ammo anymore, we would simply not manufacture it and suggest that you use our 38 SPL+P ammunition.
None of these loads caused crimp/bullet jump (in five shots) in my 12 OZ. Scandium S&W Model 340, but they did generate considerable felt recoil.
Item 19G/20-125gr. Jacketed Hollow Point bullet @ 1,225 fps from a 2.5-inch S&W mod. 66 barrel. Designed to mushroom violently, yet hold together and penetrate deeply-roughly 12 to 14 inches in human tissue.
➤ 1,109 fps (341 ft. lbs.) -- S&W mod. 340PD 1-7/8-inch barrel
➤ 1,225 fps (416 ft. lbs.) -- S&W mod. 66 2-1/2-inch barrels
➤ 1,322 fps (485 ft. lbs.) -- S&W mod. 65 3-inch barrels
➤ 1,445 fps (579 ft. lbs.) -- S&W Mt. Gun 4-inch barrel
➤ 1,388 fps (535 ft. lbs.) -- Colt Python 6-inch barrel
Special Information Note:
The below velocities were obtained from my personal, real world, factory stock, over the counter, (NOT TEST BARRELS) 357 magnum, revolvers. Also, note that the 6 inch Python, is considerably slower than the 4 inch S&W. This has nothing to do with barrel length. It is most likely a combination of differences in chamber/throat dimensions, barrel -cylinder gap, barrel internals, and forcing cone dimensions in the Python, versus the S&W. If the Python and the S&W had the same dimensions in their chamber/throats, barrel cylinder gap and forcing cone, the longer barreled Python would give much faster speeds. We have found that all of our Python test revolvers are much slower than our late model S&W revolvers of equal or even shorter barrel length.
We could have reduced the recoil, flash and blast even more by "watering down" these loads further than we did, but then you wouldn't have a real 357 magnum in your hands. So we looked for and found a balance between very powerful, fight stopping ammo that recoils and flashes much less than ours and some other makers, full power 357 loads. If we were to "water down" this "Tactical Short Barrel" 357 ammo anymore, we would simply not manufacture it and suggest that you use our 38 SPL+P ammunition.
None of these loads caused crimp/bullet jump (in five shots) in my 12 OZ. Scandium S&W Model 340, but they did generate considerable felt recoil.
Item 19G/20-125gr. Jacketed Hollow Point bullet @ 1,225 fps from a 2.5-inch S&W mod. 66 barrel. Designed to mushroom violently, yet hold together and penetrate deeply-roughly 12 to 14 inches in human tissue.
➤ 1,109 fps (341 ft. lbs.) -- S&W mod. 340PD 1-7/8-inch barrel
➤ 1,225 fps (416 ft. lbs.) -- S&W mod. 66 2-1/2-inch barrels
➤ 1,322 fps (485 ft. lbs.) -- S&W mod. 65 3-inch barrels
➤ 1,445 fps (579 ft. lbs.) -- S&W Mt. Gun 4-inch barrel
➤ 1,388 fps (535 ft. lbs.) -- Colt Python 6-inch barrel
Last edited:
If you're planning on shooting Metallic Silhouette (IHMSA?) and plan onshooting out to 200 Meters, my advice is to skip ALL of the aforementioned choices and buy a Freedom Arms 357 set up with the factory optional silhouette sights.
See thumbnail image for an example.
See thumbnail image for an example.
Attachments
Last edited:
slight_turn_line_69
Member
I'm not a fan of any Colt trigger. They always feel kinda spongy to me. Also not a fan of the current production 686. I have one and it's accurate, but the action is not as smooth as the earlier 686's. Before you buy, take a look at a Model 27-2 with an 8 3/8 barrel. If you're not going to be using a red dot sight, that's what I'd look at. I have a 5 inch 27-2 that I like a lot too.
Last edited:
Mehutch
Member
Well, I almost bought a Python twice. Beautiful gun. But for the asking price and the idea of not shooting it often, no deal. I am more than happy with all my 586's and 686's and the 7 shooters in both. 5 per-lock and two with locks. Both have the 'plug' installed. The 686 + 2.5" barrel is one of my carry options. I have the 'Grail' gun, 686-4 four-inch six shooter, but not the 'Holy Grail' 686 4" seven shooter. Oh well.
Benchrest1
Member
There is only one answer to this question, get both! That's what I did and I'm happy with both. And no I don't really like one better than the other. They are both great and I enjoy shooting both of them.
So many good answers and information! I'd still like to add something for those who don't know all that much about modern production revolvers: Any current production non Performance Center 686/686+ will look like a used gun straight out of the box, the finish and detail work is not all that great, some are pretty bad. Obviously you can then start working on it and end up with a pretty nice revolver, but some people expect a brand-new gun to look like a brand-new gun, and the Python delivers in this regard. Maybe it's because of this that people think the Python needs to be pampered while the 686 is a shooter. Just like it is with a new car, you don't want to mess up the Python, while the 686 looks like your careless uncle had it in his truck for a couple of years.
This sums it up pretty well. Nothing touches the smoothness and crisp break of a 686 in single action IMO. While I have never shot any Python they say it has the best double action of any production revolver ever made, and everyone I know who has one absolutely loves it. Either way you will have a winner, I just prefer the push release of a Smith over pull release on Colts.
Also, just food for thought, but at first the new Python DID have issues. Luckily it seems Colt has taken it seriously as demonstrated by this helpful video. Kudos to them for not blaming the owners and actually taking the time to publicly admit to the issues.
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSBuhMC5JLA[/ame]
maxfam
Member
I have pre lock Smith & Wesson's from 22's to 44's. I had 80's vintage Python's and a 38 Diamondback. Wish I had those Colt's back. I've kept all my S&W's. I purchased new 2020 3 inch and 4.25 Python's. Not overly impressed. Nice, well made firearms, kinda like a really nice custom shop Rossi or Taurus. I'm still working on the trigger pull on both and the grooves in the trigger face. I will complete the set by purchasing a 6 inch 2020 Python and work on its trigger. I am happy I own the new Python's, this is just my opinion.
lppd4
Member
As stated by others have stated. I am not sure I would ever buy a S&W with a lock. I really like the older ones (I have about 20 older Smiths from .22-.44). I like the suggestion to look for a 27-2 6.5" or any 27 for that matter or any 686 without the lock. You won't be disappointed
Darkenfast
Member
I recently got to handle and dry-fire a new Colt Python four-inch and a new S&W 686+ five-inch PC at the same shop.
Python: Wins on looks and surface finish. Tied on DA. MSRP $1500.
S&W: Wins on EVERYTHING else. Tied on DA (very smooth) and superior on SA. Seven rounds. Moderate weight and excellent balance. If you've ever thought: "Gee, I really like this 627PC except for the weight and sluggish handling!", then try one of these. Cut for clips, but you don't have to use them. Better sights. Tapped for optics. Better grips for real-world shooting (Hogues), if they fit your hand, of course (they did mine).
Five-inch barrel is not everyone's choice, of course. I don't believe either the "hole" or the internet-dreaded MIM parts are a problem in the real-world. MSRP $1050.
Caveat: Only handled these, not fired. Both should be mechanically accurate.
Beauty is as beauty does.
Python: Wins on looks and surface finish. Tied on DA. MSRP $1500.
S&W: Wins on EVERYTHING else. Tied on DA (very smooth) and superior on SA. Seven rounds. Moderate weight and excellent balance. If you've ever thought: "Gee, I really like this 627PC except for the weight and sluggish handling!", then try one of these. Cut for clips, but you don't have to use them. Better sights. Tapped for optics. Better grips for real-world shooting (Hogues), if they fit your hand, of course (they did mine).
Five-inch barrel is not everyone's choice, of course. I don't believe either the "hole" or the internet-dreaded MIM parts are a problem in the real-world. MSRP $1050.
Caveat: Only handled these, not fired. Both should be mechanically accurate.
Beauty is as beauty does.
The 686 is an alltime favorite of mine. I have no experience with a Python but don't feel like I'm missing anything. I have two 686-4+ guns, 2.5 inch and 4 inch. Love them. I even have a 3 inch -6+ with the dreaded hole. I don't like how it looks but it hasn't caused me problems either. I'll stick with the 686. I can't justify the cost of a Python.
Last edited:
outta_ammo
Member
A direct comparison by hickok45:
[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9AR3EBieA0"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9AR3EBieA0[/ame]
[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9AR3EBieA0"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9AR3EBieA0[/ame]
lppd4
Member
Direct comparison is a pre lock 686 vs a new Python. I'll agree take the 686 I have a 4" and a 6" and a 4" 586. I like the action far more than my 1975 vintage 6" Blue Python or my new 3" Python. But again no lock hole and my only knock against the dreaded hole is the contours of the gun look silly to me
Last edited by a moderator:
.38SuperMan
Member
Mustang or Camaro? Jeep or Bronco? Brunet or blonde? Apple pie or blueberry? Republican or democrat? Depends on where you ask.
HOUSTON RICK
Member
If you want to shoot it, buy the 686. If you want something to keep in your safe and leave for your wife so she can keep the pool boy - even though she has no pool - buy the Colt.
SWFan27
Member
Maybe new Smith & Wessons get the **** beat out of them in Europe for some reason, but when I look at them or purchase a new Smith here in America they always look brand spanking new.
I have owned several 686s (purchased new in the 1980s) and currently own a 4" 586 no dash and a 6" 586-3. I also still have three Pythons, a 2.5" from 1965, a 4" I bought new in the late 1970s and a 6" stainless from 1989 with a factory tune. I shoot all of them a lot. I can't speak to the shootability of the new Pythons, have only handled and dry fired them at my LGS. My L frames are accurate and have decent actions. All of my Pythons exhibit superior accuracy and have excellent actions. I consider both to be fine revolvers, with an edge to the Pythons. I don't have a new 686, but did purchase a new 2.75" 69 (also an L frame) about a year ago. It is cosmetically decent, but the action is not up to the smoothness of any of my older S&We (of which I have many), and I intend to do an action job on it soon. I also bought a 25-15 a short time ago, and have been very disappointed with it in DA, not smooth, heavy and stacks like crazy. Definitely in need of an action job. Based on that, I'm not likely to buy a new 686. I seriously considered a new 4.25" Python, but decided I didn't really need it. However, if Colt starts to make them available with an 8" barrel, I'll be all in. I was impressed with the smoothness of the new Python double action, and it's single action can be much improved with some light stoning to get more in the range of the original Pythons. I am not impressed with the rear sight of the new Python, but I understand Colt is working on a better sight for it, and there are other sights which can be installed. If price is not an overriding concerb, I would go with a new Python over the new 686. However, it is likeky, based on my recent experience with newS&Ws, that you may need to get an action job on one, effectively raising the net price.
BTW, there is a lot of internet talk about Pythons being weak and going out of time at the drop of a hat. I will admit that in 2010, after 45 years of carry and use, with many thousands of full charge 357 magnums run through it, my 2.5" Python started to go a little bit out of time. I sent it back to Colt's Custom shop and, for the grand sum of $85, they went through the gun, got it running like new, and replaced the rather battered front and rear sights with new red ramp front and white outlive rear, as I requested. What an improved sight picture, and it shoots like a dream. Too bad Colt no longer works on the old DA revolvers. That being said, 45 years of heavy service before needing minor maintenance just doesn't seem to me like it's a weak action. The new Pythons have an entirely different action than the original Pythons, anyway, and are probably no more prone to problems than an S&W.
Honestly, although I love my Smiths(of which I have many) and enjoy them all, if push came to shove, the last guns I would ever let go of would be my Pythons.
BTW, there is a lot of internet talk about Pythons being weak and going out of time at the drop of a hat. I will admit that in 2010, after 45 years of carry and use, with many thousands of full charge 357 magnums run through it, my 2.5" Python started to go a little bit out of time. I sent it back to Colt's Custom shop and, for the grand sum of $85, they went through the gun, got it running like new, and replaced the rather battered front and rear sights with new red ramp front and white outlive rear, as I requested. What an improved sight picture, and it shoots like a dream. Too bad Colt no longer works on the old DA revolvers. That being said, 45 years of heavy service before needing minor maintenance just doesn't seem to me like it's a weak action. The new Pythons have an entirely different action than the original Pythons, anyway, and are probably no more prone to problems than an S&W.
Honestly, although I love my Smiths(of which I have many) and enjoy them all, if push came to shove, the last guns I would ever let go of would be my Pythons.
